Political compass and type
Most people probably know about this site, if not here you go:
The Political Compass
Political compass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is there a relation to socionics types? Can the four quadrants be linked to quadras, perhaps?
I remember user Pheadrus used to link Ti to the political left, but these days we have Pinnocchio proponing the exact opposite position.
Authoritarianism seems to have certain Se-ish properties at the very least...
If it isn't happening to me, I can let people who care more do something about it.
My thoughts on politics.
That's the kind of behavior that gets dictators elected, for your information.
interesting wiki.
I'm most likely libertarian right. (which is probably the most gamma ish quadrant.)
as a second choice, I'm libertarian left.
I would think that libertarian = P and tradional = J (though I've seen exceptions so don't know if it's really correlated)
I often see leading Ti types being left, and leading Te types being right.
For the rest I haven't noticed that much correlation. Surprisingly many NF types that I know aren't as left as I would expect.
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 0.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.28
Wouldn't that make make it's opposite, Authoritarian Left, correlate with Alpha? I don't think that makes much sense.I'm most likely libertarian right. (which is probably the most gamma ish quadrant.)
I scored Libertarian Left with very low values (-2.00, -2.00 or something), btw. I think it's not improbable that there is some major bias in the test either way.
It seems to get populists and politicians elected here in Oppositeland, actually. Compulsory voting ftw.Originally Posted by labcoat
EDIT
It's really more like, I don't know what the various parties offer policy wise, and thus whether it's really relevant to my admittedly incredibly both uneducated and really small and simple world. I basically don't see myself as having much relevance to voting, and, likewise, my total lack of faith in politicians to act as expected means I don't really feel the world of politics has much relevance to me. We're utterly isolated and discrete worlds, it seems.
That said, these guys seem to have their head screwed on straight. If I'm going to be pissing in the ocean, might as well do it with a bit of direction.
Removed at User Request
I disagree. Economic policy is the point of contention I have with my LII schoolfriend when it comes to political discussions. People naturally do incredibly stupid things to the market, and if they aren't regulated, you wind up with feedback mechanisms that mean fluctuations go full throttle both ways. The government is in a natural position of power to clean up after People being a pack of lemmings and give them a little less room to be idiots in.
At this stage I think it would be most interesting to gather a bunch of representatives of a given type and see where their political inclinations lie. I think, however, that really specific ideas about politics are going to be the result either of social inheritance or what information one has been exposed to, and thus what conclusions one has drawn from them.
That's the kind of behavior that gets dictators elected, for your information.I see no contradictions.It seems to get populists and politicians elected here in Oppositeland, actually. Compulsory voting ftw.
The Left is usually "accused" of wanting to have society ruled by an intellectual elite that decides what is best for the common people because the people can't do that themselves as well as the elite can. That sounds sort of Ti to me. The whole free market thing sounds like something a person with "bussiness logic" would appreciate too.Yes, my strong opinion is that:
- Se/Ni - authoritarianism, centralisation, down->up transparency (of the regulated), etc.
- Ne/Si - libertarianism, decentralisation, up->down transparency (of regulators), etc.
- Ti/Fe - rightist, free market, fine-based (punishment) legislation, etc.
- Te/Fi - leftist, fair market, proactive (directive) legislation, etc
---
I don't intend to copy that article I pointed out how these values are found in the
EU parliament
European_parliament greatest groups, but on short:
- EPP (European People's Party) - Beta
- S&D (Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats) - Gamma
- ALDE (Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) - Alpha
- Greens - EFA (The Greens – European Free Alliance) - Delta
Note that I typed the S&Ds and the Greens as the best parties for Gammas and respectively Delta before I found the other similarities. Seems to make sense.
I have two relatives who are very clearly gamma (ENTj, ESFp) and both are consistent voters of the Liberal Democrat party in my country. I went to a meeting of young members of said party with them and was almost suffocated by the amount of gamma influence there.
Not conclusively saying you're wrong, but it seems to me there are plenty of contradictions to your rule even to the point of making the opposite seem more likely from my perspective.
I came close to Gandhi and the Dalai Lama, Foreigners!
Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.85
ISTp
SLI
Enneagram 5 with a side of wings.
btw Labcoat, your definition is way off. Lefties tend to seek equalibrium. Righties seek economic elitism. It's the Right that sees "common people" as nothing more than a "factor of production."
You may be right on the intellect part though.
Last edited by Cyrano; 02-17-2010 at 06:59 PM.
ISTp
SLI
Enneagram 5 with a side of wings.
Fuckin' queue hoppers.I see no contradictions.
Removed at User Request
I know. Both sides accuse the other of causing inequality. But the Right protects the economic freedom of individuals, in so doing declaring the inequality resulting from market dynamics legitimate. The Left limits the economic freedom of individuals in order to reduce inequality resulting from market dynamics, but in so doing has an authorative "elite" decide how the market is tamed.btw Labcoat, your definition is way off. Lefties tend to seek equalibrium. Righties seek economic elitism. The Right that sees "common people" as nothing more than a "factor of production."
That's sort of how I have been explained the situation.
Removed at User Request
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.59
Which falls into the left/libertarian aspect, apparently.
I think given the choice, i'd say i'm left wing, but I think too much of either ultimately becomes damaging, would be good if the left wing principles could work realistically in the long term.
The tendency on another forum I post on (CivFanatics) was that almost everybody got pegged as Left Libertarian.
It could reflect something about the places I go, or something about a bias in the test.
Hmm, you got to think about it... Take something typically Left like welfare services. An ugly way to describe what welfare is is "forced redistribution of wealth". Thing is, that is also a correct description. Anyone who doesn't participate in the funding of these services gets dragged off to jail.Yes, lefts is sometimes accused of authoritarianism, but it inherently has no connection.
Removed at User Request
Any society that has taxes, if you don't pay your taxes you go to jail. Welfare may or may not be included.
You're wrong because you associate welfare with taxation and wealth redistribution and this is not a true statement.
Welfare services are merely a program paid for by taxation. Defense, administration and various other programs are also paid for by taxation. Welfare is also not necessarily about redistribution of wealth.
In the US, a large majority of all tax money funds 3 programs, Medicare, Defense, Social security.
These programs are not wealth redistribution programs, because Social Security is a pension plan(supposedly paid for) and Medicare is non-means driven(It is not income based.)
Means based programs in the US are a fraction of the costs of the 3 large non-means based programs.
Anyways you want to know what real forced redistribution of wealth is...
I pay 18% capital gains tax and 30+% income tax.... basically my asset growth is taxed more then my labor and productivity. And the rich, who are asset heavy are taxed less then the poor who have little to no assets.
If you want to talk about tax inequality, you need to look at the inequity in real taxation between the rich and poor and how that inequity has driven the wealth disparity into the stratosphere.
I'm part of a proud tradition of leftists like Adam Smith who believe that progressive taxation is reasonable and having some money is not a terrible sin.
Removed at User Request
Last edited by Pied Piper; 02-17-2010 at 07:15 PM.
Right. In as far as there is any welfare going on at all, it is funded by taxes. When a person choses not to pay only the part of the tax that welfare is funded with, he gets dragged to jail all the same.Any society that has taxes, if you don't pay your taxes you go to jail. Welfare may or may not be included.
We just established that welfare is in fact associated with taxation. As for wealth redistribution: if one person pays and another person benefits, how is there not wealth redistribution going on?You're wrong because you associate welfare with taxation and wealth redistribution and this is not a true statement.
Again, like you say it is payed for by taxation by all citizens of the nation, and those "in need" benefit. That is redistribution of wealth.Welfare services are merely a program paid for by taxation. Defense, administration and various other programs are also paid for by taxation. Welfare is also not necessarily about redistribution of wealth.
Which part of "redistribution of wealth" makes you think the term is restricted to the flow of wealth from the rich to the poor? A guy that spends his entire life working, never gets unemployed, remains healthy for all his life and dies abruptly at age 40 still ends up paying for the needs of others under that system.In the US, a large majority of all tax money funds 3 programs, Medicare, Defense, Social security.
These programs are not wealth redistribution programs, because Social Security is a pension plan(supposedly paid for) and Medicare is non-means driven(It is not income based.)
I'm just trying to understand the issue, and your "proud" ideological biases are getting in the way.Means based programs in the US are a fraction of the costs of the 3 large non-means based programs.
Anyways you want to know what real forced redistribution of wealth is...
I pay 18% capital gains tax and 30+% income tax.... basically my asset growth is taxed more then my labor and productivity. And the rich, who are asset heavy are taxed less then the poor who have little to no assets.
If you want to talk about tax inequality, you need to look at the inequity in real taxation between the rich and poor and how that inequity has driven the wealth disparity into the stratosphere.
I'm part of a proud tradition of leftists like Adam Smith who believe that progressive taxation is reasonable and having some money is not a terrible sin.
Or is welfare a safety net, available to ALL citizens should the need arise? It's a glass half-full thing. One could argue that "economic power" causes a redistribution of wealth from the masses to the economic elite.
ISTp
SLI
Enneagram 5 with a side of wings.
Sure. I said it was an ugly way to describe it. There are others.
Not all welfare programs have been funded by taxes, in some communist states there was sometimes no taxation as all as all property was owned by the state. People were given jobs/food/neccessities/health care/schooling and some money for their labor.
This is a false association as not all welfare programs have been funded by taxation.
You're not differentiating wealth redistribution at all. Because "forced wealth redistribution" could begin to apply to many situations outside of welfare including what I noted.
Because then even paying for a military and any taxation at all can be under the umbrella of "forced wealth redistribution". Not everyone agrees that the military "needs" to be the way it is or uses the military. Religious tithes in some states, taxes for roads and any other government services that are offered but not utilized are paid by taxes also fall under "forced wealth redistribution" based on your understanding of "forced wealth redistribution".
It's not just a ugly way to say it, it's a fairly meaningless way as well.
I view some Welfare as a service that you pay the government. Some people may find it unmoving to see people in squalor or old people abandoned to disease and destitution, but I view such misery as environmentally polluting. The ideological battle of whether to have welfare or not and who's socialist and what not is mostly pointless. Welfare reform should aim to reduce costs and create benefit for society rather then if it's socialism or what not.
I think the battle of big government vs small government as also equally pointless. Cost-effect government is more important. I've found that people that believe small government to be universally more efficient then big government to be wrong as well as vice versa and people that don't believe in government at all as deluded.
My personal ideology as far as something I will explicitly say is one of economic "check and balances".
Much as some countries have adopted political checks and balances in differing branches of government, economic check and balances resulting from management of wealth generation and wealth distribution may allow for a better society rather then any system focusing on solely wealth generation or wealth distribution.
Last edited by mu4; 02-17-2010 at 08:50 PM.
The political compass has a bias towards its own definition of Left and Libertarian, although the former more so than the latter.
I haven't taken this in a while
Economic Left/Right: -0.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.51
I still find it weird that they devote an entire page to topics of sex.
Freudian overemphasis? lol
Economic Left/Right: -2.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.18
Looking for an Archnemesis. Willing applicants contact via PM.
ENFp - Fi 7w6 sp/sx
The Ineffable IEI
The Einstein ENTp
johari nohari
http://www.mypersonality.info/ssmall/
The only problem with dictators is what they do that affects people when they get into office and then it become that persons problem. Of course with a little forsight what brian is saying is that if you forsee a politician being bad for you in the future then maybe its your concern, but if not then let someone else interject their opinion.
Having excessive opinions about the way things should be done is the kind of behavior that gets you elected as a dictator, having too little opinions is the kind of behavior thats gets someone else elected as a dictator.
Wouldn't any one of us love to be elected dictator?
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
lol it would have it pluses, until the opposition came to get you, and all your loyal followers abadon you, and you become the scapegoat for all of the worlds injustice/problems.Wouldn't any one of us love to be elected dictator?
But other than that, it would be a good ride for a while, probably the best.
Removed at User Request
This is interesting, and fairly similar to my own estimation, especially the Judicious/Decisive dichotomy. My other axis was Aristocratic/Democratic, though, instead of Merry/Serious, and I interpreted it as Collectivist/Individualist. So Alpha would be Decentralized Individualism, Beta would be Centralized Collectivism, Gamma would be Centralized Individualism, and Delta Decentralized Collectivism.
I'm afraid I'm woefully ignorant of the subtleties of governments across the sea from me (although I've been starting to learn a bit recently). Do you follow American politics closely enough to break it down that way? (I wouldn't expect you (or anyone, really, even Canadians) to know about Canadian politics.)
Not in Western civilizations, anyway, with our traditions of democracy and freedom. Someone in an unstable third world country, or even someone in our own countries not so long ago, might feel differently (e.g., "The Divine Right of Kings", etc.).
Quaero Veritas.
Shrug. I'm center but that's because I tend to just absorb the political views of my surroundings. I don't really care about politics. I know that's bad. But I don't.
Jack Cade's revolution in Henry VI!!!!! [/Shakespeare]Wouldn't any one of us love to be elected dictator?
lol it would have it pluses, until the opposition came to get you, and all your loyal followers abadon you, and you become the scapegoat for all of the worlds injustice/problems.
But other than that, it would be a good ride for a while, probably the best.
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
Removed at User Request
Economic Left/Right: -3.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.08
No suprise there
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
If there is a relationship to type, I've seen it contradicted at every turn. To everyone who says that Gammas are the embodiement of free market capitalism, I submit that Theodore Dreiser was a comitted socialist who wrote about social inequality.
What is probably partially IM related is the underlying assumptions behind picking a political system, as well as the personal motivations to do so. That's keeping in mind that different IMs don't necessitate external differences in behavior, and that two people of the same type may or may not even be discussing the subject from the POV of the same IM element.
There is a vague, deeply buried kernel of truth in the idea of a correlation, no different from any other large-scale movement that people try to relate to socionics.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
